Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary: PDF
Source: https://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/
2016年7月7日星期四
Letter to the Office of the Chief Justice for investigations
From: Yan Jun
[mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:43 AM
To: shirleyne CHAN (Office of the Chief Justice)
Cc: Roger Tan (IMH); Ministry of Health (MOH); agc@agc.gov.sg; STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); FJCOURTS Family Registry (FJCOURTS); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); 'Freedom House'; 'Human Rights First '; 'Jennifer Jokstad'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'The International Service for Human Rights'; 'Lian He Wan Bao'; 'Lian He Zao Bao'; 'Shin Min Daily'; 'The Online Citizen (Singapore)'; 'The Straits Times'; 'Apple Daily'; 'Asia times'; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) '; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)'; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)'; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; 'Workers' Party'
Subject: Request for investigations: Torture in detention
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:43 AM
To: shirleyne CHAN (Office of the Chief Justice)
Cc: Roger Tan (IMH); Ministry of Health (MOH); agc@agc.gov.sg; STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); FJCOURTS Family Registry (FJCOURTS); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); 'Freedom House'; 'Human Rights First '; 'Jennifer Jokstad'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'The International Service for Human Rights'; 'Lian He Wan Bao'; 'Lian He Zao Bao'; 'Shin Min Daily'; 'The Online Citizen (Singapore)'; 'The Straits Times'; 'Apple Daily'; 'Asia times'; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) '; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)'; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)'; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; 'Workers' Party'
Subject: Request for investigations: Torture in detention
Dear the
Office of the Chief Justice,
Case No.
SC-903900-2016: Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun
1. I
am writing to report the torture I suffered in the Institute of Mental Health
(IMH) and requested the court for investigations.
2. The
State Courts issued a remand order on 14 April 2016 to detain me in the IMH for
two weeks for a psychiatric assessment, so the court owed me a duty of care to
ensure my safety during the detention. However, when I returned to the Court on
28 April, the judge of the State Courts declined my request for investigations,
without giving any justification.
3. The
remand order was reported by both the Straits
Times and Channel
News Asia.
Torture in the IMH
4. The
torture refers to the physical and chemical restraints (4-point restraint in
bed and antipsychotic medication) imposed on me by the staff members of the IMH
on 19 April 2016[1]. I already filed a formal letter of complaint to the CEO of
the IMH but there is no reply. It should note that the use of restraints is not
unusual because in one week time, I witnessed another two cases where physical
and chemical restraints were used on individuals detained in the next door
seclusion room. In my case, the torture was caused by the IMH’s
misunderstanding of the law.
Diagnosis
5. I
was diagnosed with “No major mental illness. Narcissistic traits, Querulous
behavior” by a psychiatrist on 19 April 2016 [2] so I am fully responsible for
my protests.
6. While
narcissistic
personality disorder is characterized by exaggerated feelings of
self-importance, I must say I held no regard for medical staff in the forensic
ward of the IMH because of their questionable professional integrity,
insufficient legal knowledge and poor analytic skills.
7. Querulous behavior refers to
vexatious legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds. This diagnosis
was based on numerous litigations I filed with the Family Justice Courts (FJCs)
since 2009 but a psychiatrist certainly is not in a position to assess an
individual’s legal knowledge. With great respect and honestly, it is me who
identified serious flaws in the textbook ”Element of Family Law in
Singapore (2nd Ed, LexisNexis, 2012)” and I also copied this
letter to the FJCs.
8. With
respect, I do not accept the diagnosis because it denies facts. It is a good
idea for the psychiatrist to attend the trial fixed at Court 7 of the State
Courts on 9 May 2016 at 9:30am [3] to check whether his diagnosis is correct. I
already declined the DPP’s offer of 24-month probation or something. The offer
was baseless because even at this point, I am still innocent.
State Court’s denial of my right to fair trial and
hearing
9. On
28 April in the hearing, I expressly claimed that the court denied my right to
fair trial and hearing on the ground that the hearing judge prohibited me from
challenging the lawfulness and the correctness of the remand order he issued on
14 April. There was no response from the court.
10. It
is a fact that the lawfulness of the arrest had not been examined in the first
place by even the office of the Chief Justice (See email below) so the
lawfulness of the remand order is called into question.
11. According
to Channel
News Asia, the DPP reasoned “a psychiatric assessment would be crucial in
determining if there was something preventing him from accepting and processing
information that would be critical to his understanding the nature and
consequences of his actions”.
12. Unfortunately,
a psychiatric assessment is meant to settle the issue of “how responsible one
is for his actions” and in this case, it can be used to find out whether the
protests were staged on my own volition or caused by my involuntary acts
because someone whispered to me or ordered me to do so. I did apply for a
protest permit. The right test to address the DPP’s concern is an intelligence
test or a legal test.
13. Since
I submitted the evidence of the judicial corruption to the Government
and the international community in November 2015, the DPP’s suspicion of
“persecutory delusional disorder” was baseless. My corruption allegation
is a matter of fact and of law so the truthiness of it must be assessed by
legal but not medical professionals.
14. I
stand by my allegation of judicial corruption and encourage the DPP to charge
me with “contempt of court” to settle the issue of corruption in public. I will
continue my protest against judicial corruption after all other remedies have
been exhausted.
15. Thank
you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(S7684361I)
[1] : Attached
file, p. 1-5.
[2]: Ibid,
p. 6.
[3]: Ibid,
p. 7.
Torture in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH)
Facts
1.
On
14 April 1016, the State Courts issued a 2-week remand order to place me in the
IMH for a psychiatric assessment. When I was admitted to the forensic ward of
the IMH at around 10pm, I asked nurses for written regulations governing the
rights and duties of the detained individuals and the IMH. No document was provided.
The
1st interview
2.
On
the morning of 15 April, a psychiatrist interviewed me for the first time. I told
him the course of my suit against the police for false imprisonment. In
addition, I challenged the lawfulness of the remand order by pointing out that
the lawfulness of the arrest hadn’t been determined by the court in the first place.
In response to my request to write a letter (or a writ of Habeas corpus[1])
to the High Court Registry to review the legality of the detention, the
psychiatrist suggested that I should do so after I was discharged from the IMH.
I explained that an individual would not be in a position to write such a
letter if he was released from the detention. There was no direct response from
the psychiatrist.
The
transfer
3.
On
the morning of 18 April, I managed to write the letter in front of a social
worker Roger and a case manager but was told that the letter couldn’t be mailed
out without the psychiatrist’s approval. While the case manager informed a
nurse that she would get back to me later that afternoon, at dinner time (5pm) I
checked with a nurse and found that she was gone. I checked with a senior staff
member who later turned out to be a nurse clinician about the status of my
letter (or whether it was mailed out) but the nurse clinician ignored me.
4.
I
explained to him that the request was made under my constitutional right so he was
obliged to respond to it; however, my
explanation didn’t work. After I raised my voice to emphasize the absolute
supremacy of constitutional rights, the nurse clinician simply made an order to
send me to a single-bed room (seclusion room) that was specifically designed
for troublemaker patients. I didn’t resist in any way and no explanation was
provided to justify the transfer.
The
2nd Interview
5.
On
the morning of 19 April at around 9am, the psychiatrist interviewed me for the
second time and he finally concluded that I didn’t suffer from a major mental
disorder. However, he didn’t give a direct response to my request for an early
release on the ground of my normal mental state[2]. I
reported the transfer of me to the seclusion room to him and asked for a
written justification but he simply treated the transfer as a “response” but
not a “punishment”. Due to my persistence, the psychiatrist allowed me to write
a complaint letter to the management of the IMH. I was sent back by the
security guard to the seclusion room at around 10am.
3
questions
6.
From
10am to 1pm, I waited in the seclusion room to be called out to write the
letter. I also talked to a number of nurses about the psychiatrist’s permission
but they all replied that they were too busy to handle my request. In fact,
what the nurses supposed to do was to provide me with a pen and a piece of
paper so I could write the letter in front of the security guard only. I also requested
the security guard to talk to the nurses on my behalf, there was still no
response.
7.
At
around 1pm, I asked 3 questions to a nurse who happened to pass the seclusion
room. The first question was “Can I write the complaint letter?” This nurse declined
my request on the ground of their busy work schedule. The second question was
“Why did you give priority to other jobs assigned by the psychiatrist but not to
my request?” This nurse simply replied that my request was “less important “and
didn’t provide any justification. The third question was “When can I write the
letter?” This nurse replied “I have no idea”.
Physical
restraint
8.
Given
the facts that I had waited for 3 hours and I had got the psychiatrist’s
permission, I thought this nurse had denied me my constitutional right to
freedom of expression so I kicked the lower part of the door continuously to
express my unhappiness. The nurse set off the alarm and after a short while,
over 10 persons gather outside the seclusion room. A male ward manager told me
to get out of the room and they wouldn’t apply force on me. He told me to lie
on a hospital bed and as soon as I did so, they immediately applied hand and
feet restraints on me to tie me to the bed. I didn’t resist in any way but expressly
told them of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of my mental state. I also requested
to see the psychiatrist, there was simply no response.
9.
I
was placed inside the seclusion room and after a short while, a female doctor came
and asked me whether I had got any injury. I told her what happened to me and expressly
informed her of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis, however, she simply ignored me
and left. A nurse told me that she was the only doctor I could talk to.
10.
From
1pm to 1:30am, for over 12 hours, I was restrained in bed and I kept shouting
“release me” and “protest against the IMH for false imprisonment” and also
condemned the nurses but no one dealt with my request. A nurse told me that
“the harder you try, the less likely you will write the letter”. At 5pm, a
nurse told me that he would release me on the condition that I would have dinner;
I refused because I was on a hunger strike.
Chemical
restraint
11.
At 1:30am of 20 April, 3 nurses came into the
room to stop me from shouting. I expressly told them the psychiatrist’s diagnosis
and asked them to justify the use of restraints. One nurse shouted at me that “You
have no right” and added that “We come to release you but you talked so much so
we don’t release you”. He suggested to his colleague that “if he continues to
make noise, we give him a shot”. I immediately stopped making noise and requested
for a release but they simply left. A few minutes later they came back and gave
me an injection, regardless of my protest. When questioned why to give me a
shot since I had already stopped making noise, a nurse answered “to make you
rest well”.
12.
I
was told that my blood pressure would be measured every 15 minutes in the first
hour after the injection and I could only recall the first measurement. When I
woke up in the morning, I found I was lying in a mattress on the ground. When I
got up, I felt dizzy. I continued my hunger strike to protest against the
hospital brutality until the dinner time of 22 April, when I was confirmed that
my complaint letter wrote on 21 April was sent to the CEO of the IMH. There is no
response.
The
nurse clinician’s explanation
13.
I
came across the nurse clinician and asked him for a written justification for
his transfer order. On the morning of 22 April, he showed me a copy of internal
regulations made by the IMH in which the rights and the duties of the IMH and
the detained individuals were set out. He added that a detained individual was
not allowed to have a copy of it.
14.
With
respect to the transfer order, he explained that it was meant to protect me
because he believed that “other detained persons wanted to beat me after I
raised my voice on 18 April”. When questioned why he didn’t put me in a multiple-bed
room as the isolation had caused me great stress, he replied that I had
attitude problems so must be isolated. With respect to the physical and
chemical restraints applied on me, he explained that I should be more patient
and allow for the nurses’ delayed response to my request due to their tight
work schedules.
15.
When
I pointed out that I was a normal person by telling him the psychiatrist’s
diagnosis of my mental state, he paused for a second and answered that he
needed to check with the psychiatrist. In addition, he insisted that the IMH had authority to give psychiatric
treatment to everyone detained in the IMH under Criminal Procedure Code
(CPC) regardless of their mental states, pursuant to the clause 1
of the regulations he produced. [emphasis added]
After
the torture
16.
Despite
my numerous requests to talk to the psychiatrist for his opinion on the
restrains, he became not available for comment. The last time I saw the
psychiatrist was on the morning of 19 April. On 25 April, exactly one week
after I was put in the seclusion room, I was transferred to my original
multiple-bed room. No justification was provided. On 28 April, I reported the torture to the
State Courts for investigations on the ground that the court owed me a duty of
care to ensure my safety in the 2-week detention in the IMH. The judge rejected
my request and directed me for independent legal advice, without providing
justifications.
Discussions
(torture vs normal psychiatric
treatment)
17.
The
use of physical and chemical restraint on me constituted a torture or psychiatric
malpractice because I was already diagnosed as having a sound mind at the point
when the restraints were applied. The
malpractice was caused by the IMH’s misunderstanding of the law.
3
issues
18.
There
are three issues in this case. The first issue is about the lawfulness of the
IMH’s internal regulations which authorize its staff members to apply
psychiatric treatments including restraints and seclusion to every detained
individual under Criminal Procedure Code. The second issue is whether there was
a breach of professional integrity on the part of the psychiatrist because he
refused to free me from the seclusion room after his diagnosis. The third issue is whether the staff members
have breached their duty of care by not checking with the psychiatrist for his
diagnosis and by their failure to observe the guidelines for the use of
restraints and seclusion rooms.
19.
For
the first issue, the clause which reads that “these [internal] regulations are
applicable to each individual detained in IMH under Criminal Procedure Code” is
apparently unlawful because it has contradicted the Constitution[3]
and the Mental Health Act (CAP 178A)[4].In
other words, the IMH’s internal regulations are only applicable to an
individual who is diagnosed with mental illness or who is reasonably suspected
of suffering from mental illness by a designated medical practitioner.
20.
It
should note there are 3 types of persons detained in the IMH. The first type is
the Real patients or those who have diagnosed as having mental illness. The
second type is Patients To Be or those whose mental states are to be assessed
by a psychiatrist. The third type is Normal persons or those who has been
excluded from having mental illness by a designated medical practitioner. It is
self-evident that a normal person’s right to liberty and body integrity is
guaranteed by the Constitution, so psychiatric treatments including the
restraints and seclusion are not applicable to normal persons like me. In fact,
pursuant to s10(6) of the Mental Health Act, I should be released from the IMH
on 19 April after the psychiatrist reached his diagnosis[5].
21.
For
the second issue, the psychiatrist must provide justifications as to why I was
put in the seclusion room after diagnosis. The psychiatrist, on behalf of the
court and the IMH, owed me a duty of care so he needs to justify his inaction
on the correctness and the lawfulness of the use of the physical and chemical
restraints on me after the torture.
22.
For
the third issue, the relevant nursing staff needs to answer the following
questions:
a)
Given
the fact that my 3 questions were apparently rational, why my kicking the lower
part of the door made me an agitated patient so physical restraints were
applied to me?
b)
The
time limit for the application of physical restraints on an adult (usually it
is 4 hours) ;
c)
Why
didn’t the nurses consult with the psychiatrist about his diagnosis after the
use of physical restraints?
d)
Why
didn’t the female doctor assess my mental state on the spot in the seclusion
room or consulted with psychiatrist for his diagnosis?
e)
Given
the fact that I informed the nurses of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis at 1:30am
on 20 April, by what authority did the nurse use chemical restraint on me
without my consent?
Conclusion
and request
23.
For
the reasons set out above, I conclude that the physical and chemical restraints
and the seclusion applied on me constitute a torture. I request the IMH for a public
explanation.
Yan Jun (S7684361I)
4 May, 2016
[1] Pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Constitution of
Singapore which reads “Where a complaint
is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being
unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless
satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before
the Court and release him”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:62847936-2328-4409-aa97-2ff69536bc2a
[2]
Pursuant to s10(6) and s2(1) of Mental Health
Act (CAP 187A). s10(6)
reads
that “A person shall not be detained
at a psychiatric institution for treatment unless —(a) he is suffering from a
mental disorder which warrants the detention of the person in a psychiatric
institution for treatment; and (b) it is necessary in the interests of the
health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that the
person should be so detained. s2(1) reads that “treatment”
includes observation, inpatient
treatment, outpatient treatment and rehabilitation”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:a623c1d9-a2ed-4de7-9ada-d3bc2f51027e
[3]Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Constitution of
Singapore which reads “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”
[4] Supra
note 2.
[5] Ibid.
2016年6月2日星期四
举牌抗议“司法不公” 男子被控违法示威 法官下令还押接受精神评估
来源：新加坡早报 2016-04-15 08:22
http://m.news-com.cn/news/index.php?c=show&id=261162
一名男子被指非法示威，并违反公共秩序法令示威抗议司法不公，昨天被控上国家法院。
被告严军（译音，40岁）曾经起诉政府，他被指分别在桥北路水仙门中心非法示威，以及在总统府正对面的公园（Istana Park）违反法令示威。他是前天在水仙门中心示威被捕。
法官在控方的申请下，下令将严军还押心理卫生学院接受精神评估，案展本月28日过堂。
主控官杨子樑副检察司告诉法官，被告可能精神有问题，有必要将他还押心理卫生学院，以评估他的精神状况，看他是否患上精神病，例如被害型妄想症。
被告声称精神没问题
主控官说，让被告接受精神评估是很重要的，这将有助于确定被告是否适合认罪或接受审讯。
严军声称精神没问题，他也表示不会认罪。他说，他的抗辩理由是总统府对面的公园是公共场所，并不是禁地。此外，警方腐败，没有妥当地处理他的准证申请。
严军面对的第一项控状，指他在今年3月2日上午10时零2分，违反公共秩序法令（Public Order Act），在总统府对面的公园示威，举起标语牌抗议新加坡司法不公。
控状显示，两个标语牌分别用华文和英文书写。其中华文标语牌写道：“抗议新加坡高等法院司法不公”，英文标语牌写道：“No Judicial Corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore”。
他面对的第二项控状，则指他在本月13日，在桥北路水仙门中心无准证示威，抗议新加坡司法不公。
根据控状，他被指举起华文和英文的标语牌进行抗议。这两个标语牌的内容跟3月2日的那两个相同。
如果罪成，他面对的第一项控状是罚款最多5000元。至于第二项控状的刑罚是罚款最多3000元。
严军被指在2009年向妻子施暴，警方以违反法庭紧急保护令为由逮捕他。他指政府不当逮捕、非法拘留、袭击和殴打、诽谤和恶意提控他等，向政府索赔122万余元。
总检察署指他过了三年起诉期限才入禀法庭，成功得到最高法院助理主簿撤销他大部分的诉求。
严军在2013年向高庭上诉，但高庭维持助理主簿的裁决。2014年，严军向最高法院上诉庭提出上诉，但被驳回。
http://m.news-com.cn/news/index.php?c=show&id=261162
一名男子被指非法示威，并违反公共秩序法令示威抗议司法不公，昨天被控上国家法院。
被告严军（译音，40岁）曾经起诉政府，他被指分别在桥北路水仙门中心非法示威，以及在总统府正对面的公园（Istana Park）违反法令示威。他是前天在水仙门中心示威被捕。
法官在控方的申请下，下令将严军还押心理卫生学院接受精神评估，案展本月28日过堂。
主控官杨子樑副检察司告诉法官，被告可能精神有问题，有必要将他还押心理卫生学院，以评估他的精神状况，看他是否患上精神病，例如被害型妄想症。
被告声称精神没问题
主控官说，让被告接受精神评估是很重要的，这将有助于确定被告是否适合认罪或接受审讯。
严军声称精神没问题，他也表示不会认罪。他说，他的抗辩理由是总统府对面的公园是公共场所，并不是禁地。此外，警方腐败，没有妥当地处理他的准证申请。
严军面对的第一项控状，指他在今年3月2日上午10时零2分，违反公共秩序法令（Public Order Act），在总统府对面的公园示威，举起标语牌抗议新加坡司法不公。
控状显示，两个标语牌分别用华文和英文书写。其中华文标语牌写道：“抗议新加坡高等法院司法不公”，英文标语牌写道：“No Judicial Corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore”。
他面对的第二项控状，则指他在本月13日，在桥北路水仙门中心无准证示威，抗议新加坡司法不公。
根据控状，他被指举起华文和英文的标语牌进行抗议。这两个标语牌的内容跟3月2日的那两个相同。
如果罪成，他面对的第一项控状是罚款最多5000元。至于第二项控状的刑罚是罚款最多3000元。
严军被指在2009年向妻子施暴，警方以违反法庭紧急保护令为由逮捕他。他指政府不当逮捕、非法拘留、袭击和殴打、诽谤和恶意提控他等，向政府索赔122万余元。
总检察署指他过了三年起诉期限才入禀法庭，成功得到最高法院助理主簿撤销他大部分的诉求。
严军在2013年向高庭上诉，但高庭维持助理主簿的裁决。2014年，严军向最高法院上诉庭提出上诉，但被驳回。
The police prohibited a public protest against the judicial corruption
See Para 2 of the email sent by Officer Thia Kai Wun, who represented the police, on 1 March 2016.
From: Kai Wun THIA (SPF)
[mailto:THIA_Kai_Wun@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 13:25
To: Yan Jun
Subject: RE: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 13:25
To: Yan Jun
Subject: RE: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Dear Sir,
Please
be reminded that your permit application, PP/20160225/0003/G was not
approved.
2
Please note that staging a protest outside Istana or any other public places is
an offence under the Public Order Act.
3
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
WARNING: "Privileged/Confidential information may be
contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must
not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of
any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under
the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if
you receive this in error."
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:15 PM
To: Kai Wun THIA (SPF)
Subject: FW: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:15 PM
To: Kai Wun THIA (SPF)
Subject: FW: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Dear Officer Eddie Thia,
Police permit application reference: PP/20160225/0003/G
1.I refer to your reply to me dated today at
9:06am.
2.I just sent an email to the Honorable
Attorney-General (AG) VK Rajah but forgot to copy the email to you. Please see
the email below for details. I apologize for the negligence I made.
3.Thank you.
Regards,
Yan Jun
From:
Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:07 PM
To: agc@agc.gov.sg
Cc: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; The Huffington Post; Asia times; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:07 PM
To: agc@agc.gov.sg
Cc: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; The Huffington Post; Asia times; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest
Dear the Honorable
Attorney-General (AG) VK Rajah,
1.In the
public interest, I am writing to the AG to request for a justification
for a police
decision.
The
application and the rejection
2.I made
an application (Reference number: PP/20160225/0003/G) for a one-person protest
outside the Istana on 2 March 2016 from 10am to 8pm against the judicial
corruption in the Supreme Court.
3.This
morning, police officer Eddie Thia from TangLin Division informed me that my
application was rejected. He explained that “the Istana is a prohibited
area under the Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009. Organising
or taking part in an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an
offence under Section 15 of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A”.(See
email below)
My
position
4.I do
not accept the rejection and will not appeal against it because the rejection
is invalid.
Validity
of the rejection (4 flaws)
5.First,
the rejection has violated the Supremacy of the Constitution (Article 4).
Article 14 of the Constitution provides that a citizen has right to freedom of
peace assembly so the Public Order Act (POA, Cap 257A), or a statute, cannot be
lawfully used to override a constitutional right.
6.Second,
the rejection has denied the government’s primary duty to administer justice.
Prohibited Area justification, or section 14 of POA[1] provided by officer
Eddie Thia, requires a minister to make a decision in the public interest.
However, the police have failed to specify the very public interest that they
relied on to deny the primary duty of the government. If the Government treats
my corruption allegations as spurious, actions must be taken against me for
“Contempt of Court” to solve the issue of corruption in the public.
7.In addition, the police failed to provide the name of
the minister who has treated the Istana as a prohibited area. This minister,
either PM Lee Hsien Loong, or Minister for Law K Shanmugam, or other ministers,
must be held accountable for this decision in the parliament.
8.Third,
the rejection shows the absence of consistence in police decisions. In 2015, Duo were arrested for organising public assembly
without permit outside Istana, however, the police didn’t specify the Istana as an
prohibited area. In contrast to officer Eddie Thia’s explanation, the arrest
was made under Section 16(1)(a) of the POA [2] but not Section 15 of the
POA [3] .
9.Fourth,
the rejection is flawed in law for lack of the specification of the Istana
area. My protest will be outside of the Istana but so far the police
haven’t requested me for the exact location of the protest. I would request the
AGC or the police to specify the following 5 areas: the Istana, the Parliament,
the US Embassy, the Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH), and the
Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).
My
request
10.My
protest will be carried out on 2 March 2016 at 10am if no valid justification
is provided. I would request the police spokesman to inform the press that my
sign reads “Protest against judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of
Singapore”, if the police arrest me.
11.Thank
you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore
NRIC: S7684361I)
***********************************
[1] :
Prohibited areas: 12.—(1) If, in relation to any public place, the Minister
is of the opinion that, having regard to the extent of powers exercisable under
section 13, it is necessary in the public interest to do so, the
Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, prohibit the holding of all
public assemblies or public processions or both in the public place (referred
to in this Act as a prohibited area). See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:1549b3f9-2f94-4e57-a429-a096bea93584
[2]: Ibid,
Other offences in relation to assemblies or processions 16.—(1) Each
person who organises a public assembly or public procession — (a) in respect of
which no permit has been granted under section 7
or no such
permit is in force, where such permit is required by this Act;
[3] :
Ibid, Offences in prohibited areas, etc.15.—(1) A person who organises
an assembly or a procession the holding of which he knows or ought reasonably to
know is prohibited by an order under section 12(1) or 13(1) or a notification
under section 13(2), as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence and
shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
From:
Kai Wun THIA (SPF) [mailto:THIA_Kai_Wun@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 9:06 AM
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Subject: [PP/20160225/0003/G] Application to hold an assembly on 2 March 2016 from 10.00am to 8.00pm
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 9:06 AM
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Subject: [PP/20160225/0003/G] Application to hold an assembly on 2 March 2016 from 10.00am to 8.00pm
Dear Sir,
Please refer to your Police permit application reference PP/20160225/0003/G.
2
We regret to inform you that the permit application is declined.
3
We would like to inform you that the Istana is a prohibited area under the
Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009. Organising or taking part in
an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an offence under Section 15
of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.
4
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
WARNING: "Privileged/Confidential information may be
contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must
not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of
any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under
the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if
you receive this in error."
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
From: Yan
Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2016 5:24 PM
To: SPF_Licensing@spf.gov.sg
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; shirleyne Chan; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Application for a police permit for protest against judicial corruption
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2016 5:24 PM
To: SPF_Licensing@spf.gov.sg
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; shirleyne Chan; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Application for a police permit for protest against judicial corruption
Dear Police Licensing Department,
1. This
is an application for police permit for a public protest against judicial
corruption in Singapore, pursuant to s6 of Public Order Act (CAP 257A). The
application is also copied to the AGC, Office of the Chief Justice and the QSM
of the State Courts.
2. This
one-person protest is scheduled on 2 March 2016 (10:00 to 20:00) and is
expected to take place outside the Istana (Presidential Palace).
Why to protest in public
3. The
purpose of this protest is to make the allegation of judicial corruption in
Singapore heard in public in an attempt to make the government deal with this
issue in public, fairly and transparently.
4. The
applicant reported the judicial corruption to the PM Lee 4 times (3 Nov, 25
Nov, 4 Dec, 2015 and 21 Jan 2016) by email and requested for investigations,
but there is no reply in public. While the Parliament is the right place
to address this issue, this possible avenue was tried but it has been practically
not open to the applicant so far.
Two issues for the Licensing
department to decide
5. To
deal with this application, the police needs to decide on (1) whether the
judicial corruption allegation is true and if so, (2) whether this one-person protest
will lead to public disorders.
6. For
the first issue, it is evident that the Police is not in a position to make a
decision. In fact, on 30 Nov 2015, the AGC dismissed the applicant’s allegation
as spurious and warned the applicant of contempt proceedings if the applicant
continued to make judicial corruption allegations (See supporting document for
the application form).
7. However,
the AGC has failed to stick to its warning after the applicant posted a video
entitled “Judicial
Corruption in Singapore”
on Youtube in January 2016. In addition, upon the applicant’s request, the AGC
has refused to make its warning public.
8. For
the second issue, the applicant can’t see a ground that one-person protest
could lead to any public disorder. The letters to the PM have been copied to a
large number of local and international organizations, and the content of the
protest is in perfect consistence with the government’s “zero tolerance stance
toward corruption”. In addition, no political party/organization is involved.
9. If
the police treat this protest as potentially harmful to the society, the police
is supposed to request the ACG to take preventive actions against the applicant
for “Contempt of Court”.
The applicant’s decision
10. The
corruption refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in a police wrongful arrest
case to punish the victim and to award the police, which was clearly set out in
the applicant’s petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention for investigations on arbitrary (See attachment).
11. The
applicant will exercise his constitutional right to stage the protest if no
valid ground is provided. The applicant will continue his protests even if he
is arrested or convicted. Reports will be made to the Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention for arbitrary detention if the deprivation of the
applicant’s liberty is resulted from the exercise of his right to freedom of
expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the Universal Deceleration of
Human Right.
12. Thank
you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. I will
pay the processing fee ($50) to the Licensing department tomorrow.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(S7684361I)
订阅：
博文 (Atom)